Darwinia will not be going to Steam exclusively. The only thing that is going to Steam is the Windows download. You can still order Darwinia from Introversion and get physical media, and the Linux and Mac versions will still be downloadable.
It kind of depends on how you define human. When I talk about humans, I generally mean anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens. If I am refering to one or more of the ancestor species, I will generally specify the species, or refer to "human ancestors." However, the press release is hardly academic, and may be refering to Homo erectus, which would have existed in the area at the time that this primate was wandering around.
What evidence? Most of the mtDNA evidence that I have seen places H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis in seperate species. The morphological evidence is more in favor of the same species argument, but the DNA is difficult to account for. What are you citing?
There is really no reason to justify your point of view to me. I only asked the question in the hopes that it would provoke you to further explain your point of view. I find that we are much in agreement on that score, despite the fact that I am probably far more to the left than you are.
Is it possible to assume that the widow or her husband paid taxes on that millon when it was earned? In theory (assuming that other loopholes were not used), the principle on the investment was taxed when it was first earned.
Here is where I see the problem occuring (even assuming that I agree that I am paying taxes for a service -- I do not agree that it is quite that simple):
In meatspace, you are expected to pay the taxes in the state where you earned the money. This can be a pain in the ass sometimes -- I once had to file in three different states because I had worked in three states that year (i.e. actually physically worked in those states, and was paid by employers in those states). In theory, I was taking advantage of the services offered by those states during my tenure there. So, it seems that this is some attempt to bring meatspace rules to the world of telecommuting.
The problem is this: where should you pay your income taxes? in the state where you are working, or in the state where your employers are paying you? I was a bit unclear from the article, but it sounds like it boils down to this question. Obviously, as the technology is relatively new (in the broad scheme of things), there are going to be some problems ironing things out. It sounds like some folk are having to pay two states for the same income, which just seems wrong to me. On the other hand, they really ought to be paying income taxes in one state or the other.
If anyone cares for my opinion, they should be paying taxes in the state where living. In theory, they are using the government services in that state, so should pay taxes in that state to provide for those services. However, as there does not seem to be a great deal of federal regulation of state tax systems, it seems that both states are trying to get a chunk of the change.
Actually, it hasn't proved anything, and your statement underlies a lack of statistical understanding. A 1:100 chance of failure does not indicate that out of every 100 attempts, there will be 1 failure. What it means is that if you had an infinite number of attempts, 1 out of every 100 would fail. In a non-infinite run, one failure could occur in a hundred, or none, or ten. Granted, ten is highly unlikely, but it could happen. Over the course of 200 attempts, it does not seem unlikely that only one problem would occur. Think of it this way -- it is possible to flip a coin 10 times and get all heads. It is unlikely, but it can happen. Same with the shuttle -- the actually rate of failure over infinite attempts may be 1:100, but it is quite possible to get 200 or 300 or even 1,000 attempts without failure.
TELNET! Son, when I was your age, we didn't have "Telnet." No, sir. We had to run our packets back and forth by hand. Now, in those days, a packet was a small bundle of small cards with holes in them wrapped in paper. We would carry them from one place to another. A short trip was 10 miles, through the snow, up hill both ways.
I don't know about the grandparent's school, but at the school where I work, students are required to sign a contract before they are allowed to use the computer lab. On of the things on this contract is acknowldgement that they have not right to privacy on the school district's computers. The district has a right to monitor their browsing habits. I would imagine that it is like htis in most places. As a student, you haven't much right to privacy.
I do not think that we should be replacing referees with technology... there will always be things that are subjective, and that require a human intelligence. For instance, the modern sport of fencing is heavily dependant upon technology for scoring -- there are springs on the end of weapon, and fencers wear conductive clothing to help judges determine if a person has been hit or not. However, someone is still required to determine who had right-of-way, and should be awarded a point.
I do not think that you will ever be able to replace referees with computers -- there is too much in sport that requires subjective judgements. In baseball, did the batter step into a pitch in order to get a base, or was he trying to avoid getting hit? In horse racing, did one jockey intentionally jostle another, or not (and remember that horse racing gave us the phrase "photo finish" -- one of the first examples of technology in sport)? In hockey or football, was a certain action within the acceptable bounds of contact, or does it warrant penalty?
Additionally, technology is fallible. For instance, it takes a fair amount of work to keep a foil in order. Springs have to be able to take a certain load; wires break; blades break; screws get lost; and all of these things cost money to replace. I would imagine that the same would be true of any technology. Just how much of a beating can a sensor take before it is useless? How much would it cost to put a sensor in every baseball used in a game? How long would a sensor improved football last? And, would it really be worth it? Sure there are some games that are won or lost on controversial calls (see the White Sox, last week). However, is it worth the cost of putting a sensor in every baseball, when it is only going to really matter once in ten thousand pitches?
Wow, that has to be one of the greatest things I have ever seen posted on/. I am going to have to save a copy of that somewhere for future use... (your comment is open source and free as in beer, right:)
You are still missing the point. You don't have to register to sell your own crap. You have to register if you provide the service of selling other people's crap. It is perfectly fine for me to sell my own stuff on eBay. However, if I ask someone else to do it on consignment, they must be licensed. So, this is something that only affects people that live in the states (to the buyer, it is entirely transparent), thus there is no reason for the feds to get involved, as it does not constitute a restraint upon interstate commerce.
2)a) Why the hell should eBay care? Not everyone who uses eBay must be registered, only those that are selling other people's stuff. Hell, I would welcome this kind of legislation, as it is a way to prevent fraud, which costs eBay (if not in money, then in reptation).
2)b) As a seller, you don't have to be licensed. If you 'hire' someone else to sell your stuff on eBay, they have to be licensed. The third party that sits between the seller and eBay must have a licence. If you are selling your own stuff, you don't need a licence. If you sell your stuff to someone else, and they give you money for it up front, then sell it on eBay, neither one of you has to have a license.
2)c) Why? As a buyer, you see stuff on eBay -- the same stuff that you have always seen. There is no way for you to know if you are buying something from a consignment shop (regulated) or a wholesaler (regulated, but with different laws) or a private citizen, unless the seller makes a point of it. I sinserly doubt that there is going to be any drop in the quality of eBay -- there are enough wholesalers and private folk out there selling stuff that, even if every consignment shop in the nation stopped using eBay, there would still be all the stuff you could every hope for, including the rare, one-of-a-kind Mary mother of Jesus on a potato chip.
...despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination...
In most cases, contamination of C14 samples can come from one of two places: either newer material is introduced or older carbon is absorbed from the matrix. If newer material was introduced (either by the archeologists, or by natural processes), then the date will come out more recent, thus the noodles are older than the dates suggest. On the other hand, older material is generally introduced from the sediment matrix itself, and that is fairly easy to control for. Why does everyone have such problems with radiocarbon dating? The method has been shown to work, and has been correlated with other methods, such as dendrochronology and archeomag dating. Relax.
Simple. You require that people who are using eBay to sell consignment goods from within your state be licenced. This is not about regulating eBay, but about regulating consignment sellers in the state that use eBay.
1) This is a state law. The federal government and congress haven't much to do with it.
2) The state is not taxing eBay -- it is requiring that those who sell other people's stuff on consignment using eBay be licenced; in effect, it is taxing the third party between the seller and eBay.
3) This is done in live, in person, meatspace auctions. Meatspace laws are being applied to the internet. Really, it is not much more complex than that.
Honestly, I don't know the data well enough. I am not entirely convinced by either camp, from what I have seen. I don't think that it is likely that you would find several similar skeletons, all showing signs of the same genetic 'abnormalities' if there were not a population of some size to produce those skeletons. Preservation of skeletal remains is dodgy at best, and finding several similar skeletons indicates that there were a whole lot more like them to begin with.
On the other hand, I do not think that the argument for unique species has been entirely made. Yes, these guys have very small craniums, and they are small over all, but they are morphologically similar to Homo eructus. Perhaps they are a group of Homo erectus suffering from island dwarfism -- i.e. an isolated group that happens to be small. They could be pygmies (well, eructus pygmies, at any rate).
Again, though, I really do not know the skeletons that well. I am much more interested in the hunter/gatherer groups of North America during the Archaic period (say 8,000 years ago, until contact or agriculture, whichever came first in a given area). Human origins and homonid geneologies are not really my thing.
I have that one covered. Horses and donkeys do not produce viable offspring -- they produce sterile offspring that are incapable of having offspring of their own. In the animal kingdom, this definition of species holds pretty well. It is not quite so good for plants, but the same general idea is applied.
Slashdot Mirror
Darwinia will not be going to Steam exclusively. The only thing that is going to Steam is the Windows download. You can still order Darwinia from Introversion and get physical media, and the Linux and Mac versions will still be downloadable.
xander
I think Baron Kong would be more appropriate.
It kind of depends on how you define human. When I talk about humans, I generally mean anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens. If I am refering to one or more of the ancestor species, I will generally specify the species, or refer to "human ancestors." However, the press release is hardly academic, and may be refering to Homo erectus, which would have existed in the area at the time that this primate was wandering around.
What evidence? Most of the mtDNA evidence that I have seen places H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis in seperate species. The morphological evidence is more in favor of the same species argument, but the DNA is difficult to account for. What are you citing?
There is really no reason to justify your point of view to me. I only asked the question in the hopes that it would provoke you to further explain your point of view. I find that we are much in agreement on that score, despite the fact that I am probably far more to the left than you are.
Can you point out where, in the Constitution or in any federal laws, it states that paying taxes grants you the right to vote?
Is it possible to assume that the widow or her husband paid taxes on that millon when it was earned? In theory (assuming that other loopholes were not used), the principle on the investment was taxed when it was first earned.
Here is where I see the problem occuring (even assuming that I agree that I am paying taxes for a service -- I do not agree that it is quite that simple):
In meatspace, you are expected to pay the taxes in the state where you earned the money. This can be a pain in the ass sometimes -- I once had to file in three different states because I had worked in three states that year (i.e. actually physically worked in those states, and was paid by employers in those states). In theory, I was taking advantage of the services offered by those states during my tenure there. So, it seems that this is some attempt to bring meatspace rules to the world of telecommuting.
The problem is this: where should you pay your income taxes? in the state where you are working, or in the state where your employers are paying you? I was a bit unclear from the article, but it sounds like it boils down to this question. Obviously, as the technology is relatively new (in the broad scheme of things), there are going to be some problems ironing things out. It sounds like some folk are having to pay two states for the same income, which just seems wrong to me. On the other hand, they really ought to be paying income taxes in one state or the other.
If anyone cares for my opinion, they should be paying taxes in the state where living. In theory, they are using the government services in that state, so should pay taxes in that state to provide for those services. However, as there does not seem to be a great deal of federal regulation of state tax systems, it seems that both states are trying to get a chunk of the change.
Actually, it hasn't proved anything, and your statement underlies a lack of statistical understanding. A 1:100 chance of failure does not indicate that out of every 100 attempts, there will be 1 failure. What it means is that if you had an infinite number of attempts, 1 out of every 100 would fail. In a non-infinite run, one failure could occur in a hundred, or none, or ten. Granted, ten is highly unlikely, but it could happen. Over the course of 200 attempts, it does not seem unlikely that only one problem would occur. Think of it this way -- it is possible to flip a coin 10 times and get all heads. It is unlikely, but it can happen. Same with the shuttle -- the actually rate of failure over infinite attempts may be 1:100, but it is quite possible to get 200 or 300 or even 1,000 attempts without failure.
TELNET! Son, when I was your age, we didn't have "Telnet." No, sir. We had to run our packets back and forth by hand. Now, in those days, a packet was a small bundle of small cards with holes in them wrapped in paper. We would carry them from one place to another. A short trip was 10 miles, through the snow, up hill both ways.
That's kind of why I thought my statement was funny... no one gets irony any more...
Netware 4.11? That couldn't have been that long ago... I work in a school district, and that is what we use :)
I don't know about the grandparent's school, but at the school where I work, students are required to sign a contract before they are allowed to use the computer lab. On of the things on this contract is acknowldgement that they have not right to privacy on the school district's computers. The district has a right to monitor their browsing habits. I would imagine that it is like htis in most places. As a student, you haven't much right to privacy.
Damnit! I keep hearing about this Viagra Spam. Where the hell is my Viagraa Spam?
I do not think that we should be replacing referees with technology... there will always be things that are subjective, and that require a human intelligence. For instance, the modern sport of fencing is heavily dependant upon technology for scoring -- there are springs on the end of weapon, and fencers wear conductive clothing to help judges determine if a person has been hit or not. However, someone is still required to determine who had right-of-way, and should be awarded a point.
:)
I do not think that you will ever be able to replace referees with computers -- there is too much in sport that requires subjective judgements. In baseball, did the batter step into a pitch in order to get a base, or was he trying to avoid getting hit? In horse racing, did one jockey intentionally jostle another, or not (and remember that horse racing gave us the phrase "photo finish" -- one of the first examples of technology in sport)? In hockey or football, was a certain action within the acceptable bounds of contact, or does it warrant penalty?
Additionally, technology is fallible. For instance, it takes a fair amount of work to keep a foil in order. Springs have to be able to take a certain load; wires break; blades break; screws get lost; and all of these things cost money to replace. I would imagine that the same would be true of any technology. Just how much of a beating can a sensor take before it is useless? How much would it cost to put a sensor in every baseball used in a game? How long would a sensor improved football last? And, would it really be worth it? Sure there are some games that are won or lost on controversial calls (see the White Sox, last week). However, is it worth the cost of putting a sensor in every baseball, when it is only going to really matter once in ten thousand pitches?
Anyway, fans love to hate officials
Wow, that has to be one of the greatest things I have ever seen posted on /. I am going to have to save a copy of that somewhere for future use... (your comment is open source and free as in beer, right :)
You are still missing the point. You don't have to register to sell your own crap. You have to register if you provide the service of selling other people's crap. It is perfectly fine for me to sell my own stuff on eBay. However, if I ask someone else to do it on consignment, they must be licensed. So, this is something that only affects people that live in the states (to the buyer, it is entirely transparent), thus there is no reason for the feds to get involved, as it does not constitute a restraint upon interstate commerce.
2)a) Why the hell should eBay care? Not everyone who uses eBay must be registered, only those that are selling other people's stuff. Hell, I would welcome this kind of legislation, as it is a way to prevent fraud, which costs eBay (if not in money, then in reptation).
2)b) As a seller, you don't have to be licensed. If you 'hire' someone else to sell your stuff on eBay, they have to be licensed. The third party that sits between the seller and eBay must have a licence. If you are selling your own stuff, you don't need a licence. If you sell your stuff to someone else, and they give you money for it up front, then sell it on eBay, neither one of you has to have a license.
2)c) Why? As a buyer, you see stuff on eBay -- the same stuff that you have always seen. There is no way for you to know if you are buying something from a consignment shop (regulated) or a wholesaler (regulated, but with different laws) or a private citizen, unless the seller makes a point of it. I sinserly doubt that there is going to be any drop in the quality of eBay -- there are enough wholesalers and private folk out there selling stuff that, even if every consignment shop in the nation stopped using eBay, there would still be all the stuff you could every hope for, including the rare, one-of-a-kind Mary mother of Jesus on a potato chip.
...despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination...
In most cases, contamination of C14 samples can come from one of two places: either newer material is introduced or older carbon is absorbed from the matrix. If newer material was introduced (either by the archeologists, or by natural processes), then the date will come out more recent, thus the noodles are older than the dates suggest. On the other hand, older material is generally introduced from the sediment matrix itself, and that is fairly easy to control for. Why does everyone have such problems with radiocarbon dating? The method has been shown to work, and has been correlated with other methods, such as dendrochronology and archeomag dating. Relax.
he.h
Simple. You require that people who are using eBay to sell consignment goods from within your state be licenced. This is not about regulating eBay, but about regulating consignment sellers in the state that use eBay.
1) This is a state law. The federal government and congress haven't much to do with it.
2) The state is not taxing eBay -- it is requiring that those who sell other people's stuff on consignment using eBay be licenced; in effect, it is taxing the third party between the seller and eBay.
3) This is done in live, in person, meatspace auctions. Meatspace laws are being applied to the internet. Really, it is not much more complex than that.
In summary, check your facts first, please.
gui.tar ?
wom.bat ?
Honestly, I don't know the data well enough. I am not entirely convinced by either camp, from what I have seen. I don't think that it is likely that you would find several similar skeletons, all showing signs of the same genetic 'abnormalities' if there were not a population of some size to produce those skeletons. Preservation of skeletal remains is dodgy at best, and finding several similar skeletons indicates that there were a whole lot more like them to begin with.
On the other hand, I do not think that the argument for unique species has been entirely made. Yes, these guys have very small craniums, and they are small over all, but they are morphologically similar to Homo eructus. Perhaps they are a group of Homo erectus suffering from island dwarfism -- i.e. an isolated group that happens to be small. They could be pygmies (well, eructus pygmies, at any rate).
Again, though, I really do not know the skeletons that well. I am much more interested in the hunter/gatherer groups of North America during the Archaic period (say 8,000 years ago, until contact or agriculture, whichever came first in a given area). Human origins and homonid geneologies are not really my thing.
viable == not sterile
I have that one covered. Horses and donkeys do not produce viable offspring -- they produce sterile offspring that are incapable of having offspring of their own. In the animal kingdom, this definition of species holds pretty well. It is not quite so good for plants, but the same general idea is applied.